How does comparative negligence operate in tort law?

Comparative negligence is a legal principle in tort law that assesses the degree of negligence of each party involved in an incident and determines how liability is shared among them. In cases governed by comparative negligence, both the plaintiff (the injured party) and the defendant (the alleged negligent party) can be found to hold some level of fault for the accident or injury that occurred.

The system allows for the allocation of damages in proportion to each party's degree of fault. For instance, if a plaintiff is found to be 30% at fault for their injuries, the damages they can recover from the defendant will be reduced by that percentage. This approach promotes fairness by acknowledging that multiple parties can contribute to an incident, rather than placing the liability solely on one person or party.

This principle contrasts with scenarios where liability might be assigned exclusively to a defendant or where the injured party's fault could lead to a complete bar to recovery. Comparative negligence provides a balanced framework that reflects the realities of most accidents, where fault is rarely absolute. Additionally, it does not eliminate the need for legal representation, as parties often still require legal guidance to navigate the complexities of fault assessment and damage recovery in tort claims.